Friday, December 08, 2006

sovereignty and authority in name only for Iraq

* Pen's ongoing series, The Usual Suspects, has a new entry: Dick Cheney.

* (for Noise) Antonia Juhasz was on DemocracyNow in a segment called "Oil for Sale: Why the Iraq Study Group is Calling for the Privatization of Iraq's Oil Industry"
"ANTONIA JUHASZ: Yeah, (Baker has) definitely had his allegiance spread, and it almost always, in the bottom line, has to do with oil. And as the public has been very clear in saying in its reports on Baker -- or rather, excuse me, the media -- that Baker is a pragmatist. He is a pragmatist. The Iraq Study Group report, page 1, chapter one, says that the reason why Iraq is a critical country in the Middle East, in the world and for the United States, is because it has the second-largest reserves of oil in the world. The report is very clear.

The report is also very clear, however, that this isn’t a report where the recommendations can be picked and choosed. It says that all of the recommendations should be applied together as one proposal, that they shouldn’t be separated out. That means that the authors of the report are saying that oil, privatization of oil, and foreign corporate access to oil is as key as any other recommendation that they have made.

And the report also says that the US government will withhold military, economic and political support of the Iraqi government, unless the recommendations are met. That’s a pretty straightforward statement. The US government will not provide any support to the al-Maliki government, unless it advances the changes to the Iraqi constitution and changes to Iraqi national law that essentially privatize Iraq’s oil.

That is something for us in the antiwar movement to be very, very clear about, that this is their objective and that we have to, as I repeatedly say, not just call for the end of troops in Iraq, but make clear that the US corporate invasion cannot be progressed or continue, as well."
* Arkin:
"Here's how I see Iraq playing out in the short term: The president makes an announcement within a month about his "new" plan. Washington is ever so pleased with a new approach. But the a la carte plan is seen by the Iraqis for what it is; it is not a U.S. timetable for withdrawal. It is not an unequivocal pledge not to establish permanent bases. It is sovereignty and authority in name only for Iraq with continued American control behind the scenes. I can't see (how) any of this equivocation will deflate the insurgency or stem the hatred for America that is fueled by our presence.

The "plan," in other words, is neither what the American people nor the Iraqi people want."


noise said...

I don't know how they (Bush Co.) expect to pull this off considering the Iraqi people hate our guts. They would either need another Hussein (to rule by terror) or a very large US force to protect the oil production.

Her book suggests that privatization was more important to the civilian command (Bremer with orders from Bush Co.) than stability.

It seems the civilian command put US soldiers in an impossible situation and will not get them out, in effect betraying both the soldiers and the Iraqi citizens.

rimone said...

The "plan," in other words, is neither what the American people nor the Iraqi people want."

didn't we already know that, especially last january when they voted for US to split?